United States v. Galloway

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,v.CORNELIUS GALLOWAY, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY (DOC. 107)

THIS
MATTER comes before the Court upon a hearing held on April
18, 2018 (“April 18th hearing”) on
Defendants' Joint Motion to Compel Government to Produce
Rule 16 and Brady-Giglio Materials, filed November 21, 2017
(Doc. 107).[1] In this motion, Defendants seek numerous
categories of discovery material under Fed.R.Crim.P.
16(a)(1)(A) and (E); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83,
87 (1963) and Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 153
(1972); and 18 U.S.C. §3500(a) (the Jencks Act,
prohibiting a district court from ordering production of
statements of witnesses the government intends to call at
trial before they testify).

Defendants
seeks discovery in several categories, which will be
addressed in turn.

I.
Oral Statements

Defendants
seek production of oral statements made by co-defendants to
other co-defendants, including Defendants Woods, Taylor and
Brown, and also Adrian Causey and Adrian Brown. The
Government contends that Rule 16 requires disclosure of a
defendant's oral statement, but it does not require
disclosure of other defendants' statements. The
Government also claims that these statements are not
discoverable under the Jencks Act because the statements
sought by Defendants are custodial, and any statements that
do fall under the Jencks Act will be produced at a later date
and closer to trial. Defendants point out that the March 8
statement of Xavier Stallworth was not a custodial statement
and that this statement will assist in the preparation of the
defense.

To the
extent that the statements sought by Defendants are
co-conspirator statements, the Jencks Act controls. The
Government is correct that the Jencks Act does not apply to
statements made while in custody, as these would qualify as
testimonial statements and the admission of such statements
implicates a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under the
Confrontation Clause. See Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S.
123 (1968); U.S. v. Nash, 482 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir.
2007).[2]

Under
Rule 16, the Government must disclose to a defendant
“the substance of any relevant oral statement made
by the defendant . . . .” Rule 16(a)(1)(A). As the
Government maintains, the rule does not require disclosure of
statements of other defendants. Defendants' argument that
these statements are material to preparing the defense does
not apply under Rule 16, unless the information sought falls
under the category of documents and objects. See
Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i).

This
request is granted and denied in part. Both the Jencks Act
and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are
explicit in what disclosure is required. For these oral
statements requested by Defendant: (1) the Government shall
disclose any statements made by the requesting defendant
under Rule 16; (2) the Government shall disclose any
statements made by co-conspirators which it intends to use at
trial, at a time which is closer to trial but far enough out
in time so that a determination of admissibility may be made
by the Court through a James hearing as to whether
the statements are being presented as co-conspirator
statements; and (3) the Government is not required to
disclose any testimonial (or custodial) statements of
co-conspirators, since such statements are not discoverable
under the Jencks Act.

II.
Cellular Phone Data

Defendants
are requesting all data, including text messaging, call
information, web browsing history, photos, videos, contact
lists, emails and cell tower reports collected from cell
phones belonging to not only the Galloways but all
co-defendants and alleged victims named in the indictment.
The Government is in the process of recovering information
from six cell phones that are in disrepair, is awaiting
analysis, and intends to turn over this discovery when
received. This request is denied as moot at this time,
subject to reconsideration should the need arise.

III.
Discovery Related to Overt Act of Homicides of Daryl Young
and Tobi Stanfill

Defendants
seek all information related to the homicide of Daryl Young,
one of the overt acts alleged in the Superseding Indictment,
including crime scene photographs and forensic reports. At
the April 18th hearing, Defendant specifically referred to
requests for CAD and police reports, and in particular: (1) a
“detective file” regarding the search warrant on
the Woods' residence, Bates number 321491; (2) the Super
8 motel video taken prior to TS' homicide; (3) a more
complete disclosure of all video surveillance from homes in
the surrounding area with identifying information as to the
homes from which the videos were taken; and (4) a video
referred to on Tobi Stanfill's Facebook page indicating
that she was scared of a certain individual, and which
Defendants claim may be material to the identification of a
potential alternate suspect.

The
Government is uncertain as to the existence of a separate
“detective file” and contends that it is hearing
of the other specific requests at the hearing for the first
time. The Government represented to the Court that it will
confer with Detective Jodi Gonterman from the Albuquerque
Police Department (“APD”) to ascertain to what
extent this material exists. The Government intends to
disclose this information if it does exist.

Defendants'
request in this category is denied at this time, pending the
Government's inquiry into whether this material exists,
and subject to the Court's reconsideration should
Defendant raise this issue at a later time.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.